Chaitanya Deepa vs K. Krishna
2024 Latest Caselaw 1200 Tel

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 1200 Tel
Judgement Date : 20 March, 2024

Telangana High Court

Chaitanya Deepa vs K. Krishna on 20 March, 2024

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

                  Tr.C.M.P.No.341 OF 2023

ORDER:

This Transfer Civil Miscellaneous Petition is filed by

the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of H.M.O.P.No. 128 of

2022, filed by the respondent-husband, from the file of

learned Senior Civil Judge, Vikarabad, to the file of the

learned Family Court, Hyderabad.

2. The marriage of the petitioner - wife was solemnized

with the respondent - husband on 25.09.2019 and they

were blessed with a male child; who is now aged about 02

years and suffering from autism. Unable to bear the

physical and mental harassment caused to her by the

respondent and her in-laws, she lodged a complaint

against them before the Women Police Station, Hyderabad,

basing on which Crime No.355 of 2021 was registered for

the offences punishable under Section 498-A of I.P.C and

Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, and the

same is pending. Subsequently, the respondent filed

H.M.O.P No.128 of 2022 on the file of Senior Civil Judge,

Vikarabad, seeking a decree of divorce.

2 LNA, J

3. It is stated that the petitioner along with her minor

child is residing along with her parents at Hyderabad and

that she cannot travel all along to attend the Court

proceedings in the aforesaid HMOP at Vikarabad, which is

100 Kms away from Hyderabad; on each and every date of

hearing and she is apprehending life threat at Vikarabad.

Hence, the present Tr.C.M.P.

4. Heard Sri B. Pratap, learned counsel for the

petitioner. Despite service of notice, there is no

representation on behalf of the respondent. Perused the

record.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

it is difficult for the petitioner to travel all alone from

Hyderabad to Vikarabad to attend the Court proceedings in

the HMOP along with small child of 2 years and therefore,

sought for transfer of the aforesaid H.M.O.P.No.128 of 2022

to the Family Court at Hyderabad.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended

that in the transfer proceedings of matrimonial disputes, 3 LNA, J

the convenience of the wife has to be considered, rather

than the convenience of the husband, and therefore, the

request of the petitioner-wife needs to be considered. In

support of the said contention, learned counsel for the

petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in NVC Aishwarya Vs A.S. Saravana Karthik

Sha 1.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the

respondent - husband would submit that the respondent

filed H.M.O.P.No.128 of 2022 seeking divorce, whereas the

petitioner filed C.C.No.12807 of 2021, and both are

pending for adjudication and opposed the transfer petition.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in NCV Aishwarya's

case (supra) held as follows:

"9. The cardinal principle for exercise of power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure is that the ends of justice should demand the transfer of the suit, appeal or other proceeding. In matrimonial matters,

2022 SSC online SC 1199 4 LNA, J

wherever Courts are called upon to consider the plea of transfer, the Courts have to take into consideration the economic soundness of both the parties, the social strata of the spouses and their behavioural pattern, their standard of life prior to the marriage and subsequent thereto and the circumstances of both the parties in eking out their livelihood and under whose protective umbrella they are seeking their sustenance to life. Given the prevailing socio- economic paradigm in the Indian society, generally, it is the wife's convenience which must be looked at while considering transfer."

10. Further, when two or more proceedings are pending in different Courts between the same parties which raise common question of fact and law, and when the decisions in the cases are interdependent, it is desirable that they should be tried together by the same Judge so as to avoid multiplicity in trial of the same issues and conflict of decisions."

9. The aforesaid principle of law laid down by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has been reiterated by the High

Court of Bombay in the case of Devika Dhiraj Patil Nee 5 LNA, J

Devika Jayprakash Buttepatil v. Dhiraj Sunil Patil 2,

wherein it was observed as under:-

"In a country like India, important decisions such as marriage, divorce are still taken with the guidance and blessings of elders in the family. For a lady to travel alone for the proceedings to a Court where the fate of her marriage is going to be decided without any family member would definitely be a matter of concern and cause not only physical inconvenience but also emotional and psychological inconvenience.

10. Further, in the case of Priyanka Rahul Patil vs.

Rahul Ravindra Patil 3, the High court of Bombay while

following the principle laid down in N.C.V.Aishwarya's

case (supra 1) and Dhiraj Sunil Patil's case (supra 2)

held as follows:-

"The underlying principle governing the proceedings under Section 24 of the CPC, is that convenience of the wife is to be preferred over the convenience of the husband."

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1926)

(2023 SCC OnLine Bom 1982) 6 LNA, J

11. Thus, there are catena of decisions of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court and other High Courts to the effect that in

matrimonial matters/disputes, while considering the

application for transfer of the proceedings from one Court

to another Court, the Courts must prefer the convenience

of the wife as against the convenience of the husband.

12. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioner is

seeking transfer of the H.M.O.P.No.128 of 2022 filed by the

respondent from the Court of Vikarabad to the Court of

Hyderabad, on the ground that she has to look after her